Filesharing seems to be slowly dissipating due to “streaming” services like Netflix and Spotify. These services in turn force DRM or DRM-like structures upon users which results in users no longer controlling the media they partake in.

Commercial streaming services like the aforementioned also control the selections a user can make, as opposed to filesharing where users (by exception of mass hysteria) can choose themselves. Filter bubbles (as well as “we don’t have a license for that song”-bubbles) cause tremendous harm to independent producers who cannot reach out using otherwise commonly used commercial services. It may have a devastating on non-big-media culture.

If we do not continue filesharing with storable media and can remain free to download, store and share our personal choices using our own harddrives and network connections, I believe a large part of contemporary cultures around the world will be lost in archives and aging harddrives.

I’m currently trying to find as many Creative Commons films as possible now, both non-commercial and share-alike. The non-commercially licensed films are interesting because one can have open screenings – but there’s a lot of confusion as to what “commercial” means, so there are always risks of legal battles. The free CC license “attribution share-alike” peaks my funding interest however, as it really liberates culture (to the extent possible whilst current copyright laws exist).

My latest support was for The Cosmonaut, from whom I bought the “New Kolibri Programme” present. This gave them a small contribution and I got a letter in my mailbox saying I’ve contributed (see below). Nice. And I know that the material will be freely distributed later on, giving me some comfort rather than the emptiness left behind after paying for a strictly copyrighted film.

Also I just found another free (short) movie project that hasn’t been shown much attention at all yet, even though being in post production. Vodo.net has it posted on their website, and there’s a Kickstarter project – but unfortunately they’ve only raised $5000 out of $15000 desired so far with a deadline of October 28th. The film is called A City to Make Me, an independent sci-fi noir film currently in post-production, and will be released under a Creative Commons by-sa license according to the FAQ on Kickstarter.

So the question is how much I am able to donate – and how many others who will notice it before the deadline. I’m writing about it here and now to gather support because it would be nice to see the film released and contribute to the ranks of free culture. Maybe it has to get up on The Pirate Bay to become successful? The Cosmonaut didn’t have to, but are there any other ways of quickly gathering the much needed support from pirates and other free culture supporters?

I received a news announcement from VODO.net recently regarding Zenith, one of the new film projects on the website:

A father and son, separated by decades and a cataclysm that has upturned the world, track a grand and elusive conspiracy in this cyberpunk thriller.

In the hellish future of 2044, human beings have become stupefied by the state of permanent happiness they’ve been genetically altered to experience. ‘Dumb’ Jack (Peter Scanavino) offers relief via drugs that bring his customers the welcome phenomenon of pain. But when Jack receives a mysterious videotape of his dead father, he sets out to unmask the dangerous conspiracy that has created this dystopian world.

Of course, it’s not necessarily the most original representation of a dystopian world. But considering how many movies these days are (not) original content – it’s a marvel that people still pay for the content. That’s why I’m very enthusiastic about this project, because it aims to be crowdfunded (VODO makes it easy) with $10,000 USD per episode (≃7000 EUR). Not only is that in itself rather punk and DIY, which keeps the production cost effective, but the result is that it may very well work given the possible global fanbase and the resulting long tail.

Zenith really shows the possibility to produce something at least on a par with professional studio productions. Even the actors are satisfyingly good, which is uncommon even for the usual TV show. And the full production is awaiting 3 more episodes to be fully produced and released.

Another show worth downloading and even directly supporting the production is Pioneer One, also released/distributed through VODO.net. It’s been mentioned before in comments on my blog but I’ve never dedicated a post for it. It is too a very well made – though only recently initiated – video production. Pioneer One is in the form of a TV series and will be releasing their third episode on March 28th.

Should anyone who reads this go on and see either Zenith, Pioneer One (or take part of any other free culture) – I encourage you to donate support as well as talk and write about it. As with any Creative Commons piece of culture or art, it’s the responsibility of the commons to market it. Only the huge studios have enough money (and bad enough strategies) to waste time and effort on marketing and hunting filesharers. The professionality of much freely licensed material shows that the multibillion dollar industries are not a prerequisite for quality films or shows.

Three symbols of the philosophy of accessibility regarding culture in the future.

For Creative Commons and other free culture definitions to take off we must talk about copyright issues, consequences and future ways of distributing culture. One example is how VODO.net takes advantage of the free OpenBittorrent/The Pirate Bay tracker services to keep its distribution costs to a minimum. Another is encouraging content consumers to become content producers, in order to create a global society of cultural sharing, curiosity and acceptance.

In Umeå, Sweden, we have an organisation dedicated to encouraging and promoting free culture: Common Culture of Umeå

[youtube xgh0wWHxF4k]Please note that Ellen never downloads the film per se. She only looks at the pictures. She’s offered a download but does not verify it. It mightas wellbe afraud.

This is of course bad. Unfortunately I found no way whatsoever of contacting her through the blog. Neither comments nor a contact field. This is however common with antipiracy spokespeople, considering how everytime they say something the internet sets out to prove them wrong.

Solution #2: Distribute the film without “cyberlocker sites” – use The Pirate Bay (or any other BitTorrent tracker). This way you can distribute a torrent any way you like – and use the free, decentralised peer-to-peer backend.

Using either (or both) of these methods will distribute the film at the same time as making it harder for sites to make money from illegal downloads. Better yet, it also (given we have a free, neutral internet) makes it harder for illegal markets to sell pirate DVDs. This because fan-subbed material for those who want subtitling in “other” languages usually (as with anyone) prefer the internet rather than pieces of plastic (DVD/Blu-ray).

Sharing content makes sure only the original, credited film distributor has the rights, and chance, to make money from the produced film. While at the same time building a world-wide fanbase who gladly support future film-making! Might just be me, but this seems a lot better than suing and threatening fans…

For this event, I am hilighting the video I edited hastily for the first part of the trial. Håkan Roswall happens to be the prosecutor in this case, and the scene in South Park presents a defense attorney. But they’re saying just about the same thing, so I figured that it works anyhow:

[youtube uEydw5p3BBQ]

Unfortunately the second round consists mainly of repetitions of the first act. By this I mean actual reruns of recorded hearings etc. Incredibly boring. Though it is probably for the best considering how everything – exactly as it was said in the last act – should have freed the four accused of “assisting making available copyrighted material”.

Unless, that is, Google is responsible for its search results’ contents.

Both statements are correct, though they differ in context, depending on the definition of “artist/filmmaker”. Either you speak of established filmmakers – those who produce for your everyday cinema – in which the first statement is correct. For these people a movie itself doesn’t mean money – they have to make it “sellable” in the sense of adapted to every possible viewer. Through the centralized and narrow-minded Hollywood, however, there are few enough films made to cash in this way using the big herd of movie watchers who don’t bother choosing movies.

By choosing movies I speak in the sense of actually discovering other sources than what’s force-fed through your standard media monglomerate monstrosity. Alternative distribution styles, independent labels/studios or maybe even just older movies in general – perhaps produced before the viewer was even born. Going to the cinema (or using most pay-per-view services) and looking at the schedule is not choosing.

The second statement, that creative people don’t get money, is correct in the sense of independents and those who haven’t already established themselves in the industry. The people who create because they want to and not because they signed a deal to write 15 songs in a year or deliver 3 identical movies featuring Tom Hanks. I’m talking about the films you previously never got to see because it was too expensive to create, distribute and reach out to an audience.

So how does one finance a movie without already having a huge herd of sheep at your doorstep, ready to pay $10-15 for a visit to the cinema and then $20 for the DVD? I’m not entirely sure how they did it, but the production of The Tunnel might provide that answer. I just “bought” 25 frames – one second – of that movie, meaning I donated $25 to the project. That’s more than I’ve paid for Hollywood crap-flicks the last 10 years. And this movie will be free to redistribute at no cost.

For more information on the phenomenon called “the Long Tail” and probabilistic distribution I’d definitely recommend starting with the book by Chris Anderson. Go to your local library and borrow it for free.

Previously I havepromoted and helped raise attention to Creative Commons-licensed films such as Nasty Old People, though I did not support it financially. That specific production however, as well as other free films, seem to have made it fine anyway thanks to other people supporting it. As with any film production it requires taking a risk, but from what I can see there have been relatively small problems for actually good, well-produced films to finance themselves in order to gain a profit. Star Wreck (2005) is a marvellous example of a €15,000 budget movie catching attention and eventually making it possible to finance a €6,500,000 production called Iron Sky – set to be released in 2011.

But let’s return to The Tunnel, set to be released on torrent trackers in late 2010. It was denied an IMDb listing (untiltheyreleaseit) due to not using an “official” distribution channel, they also somehow mark the dawn of a new age in filmmaking and project funding. IMDb notes that they do feature films distributed via BitTorrent, not explicitly saying – but giving the impression – that they don’t want to give the film possible credits required to “be serious”. Who knows, The Tunnel may very well be a trick to collect $135,000 and close the project?

My hopes however are in the finalization and distribution of the movie before December 2010. This in order to show it as part of the 2010 edition of Common Culture of Umeå, a short festival promoting free culture such as that which is licensed Creative Commons.

Having donated $25 I count it as no more than 2 ordinary cinema visits (only one if you count the overpriced popcorn). $25 also counts to approximately one newly released DVD. Though neither of those alternatives give you any right to redistribute the film to anyone else – ever. Keep in mind that you can’t (legally) invite your friends for a movie night using an ordinary DVD release. That sucks and is why I never pay for anything non-Free.

Creative Commons however gives you social freedom, free culture and the right to redistribute.